ML20216J064
| ML20216J064 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/27/1998 |
| From: | Mcgaffigan E NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Shirley Ann Jackson, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| NACNUCLE, NUDOCS 9803230333 | |
| Download: ML20216J064 (2) | |
Text
h*
y
. g#%
UNITED STATES
'e NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSIOW.......................
g j
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20555 0
1 ggg gg g 1
'%*****J' E
$/dl95 kW E
dee inmis COMMISSIONH February 27. 1998 MEMORANDUM T0:
Chairman Jackson 2
FROM:
Edward McGaffigan, Jr.
SUBJECT:
RESPONSE TO COMSAJ-98-002 - COMMENTS ON THE 1998 STRATEGIC PLAN AND PRIORITY ISSUES FOR THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE I have reviewed the 1998 Strategic Plan and Priority Issues for the Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste as provided in a December 23, 1997 memorandum to you and your proposed response to ACNW.
I offer the following comments for incorporation into the memo.
1.
Since the Commissioners have been afforded the opportunity to comment on the ACNW documents, the memorandum should indicate that your coments are on behalf of the Commission.
2.
Regarding the proposed comment on the need to develop metrics to neasure the effectiveness of the ACNW Strategic Plan, page 5 of the Plan indicates that ACNW intends to develop the necessary metrics or performance measures and targets to accomplish this. Therefore, additional modifications to the Strategic Plan appear unnecessary.
3.
The ACNW's Strategic Plan thould reflect the objectives, scope and duties outlineo in the ACNW Charter. Specifically, the Plan is silent on the ACNW's role in advising the NRC on legislative mandates--such as the Nuclear Waste Policy Act--and interacting with representatives of ACRS. other Federal agencies. State and local agencies. Indian Tribes.
private organizations, etc.
4.
In addition. I have a more general concern. While it is laudable for ACNW to develop a 1998 Strategic Plan, use of the " Strategic Pian" terminology implies that this Plan is part of NRC's overall Strategic Planning Process required by the Government Performance Review Act (GPRA).
It is unclear whether this is the intent of the ACNW in developing the Plan. The ACNW should be aware that the GPRA imposes ig
\\
considerable administrative requirements such as the development of a
\\
performance plan and operating plan.
In addition, this issue also gg 9803230333 980227 O [M4 @d1 PDR cOMMS NRCC 9
CORRESPONDENC,E PDR g gg4 [ qqy lllllll ll
2 raises the question whether other NRC advisory committees should develop a Strategic Plan for purposes of inclusion into the overall agency -
strategic planning process.
I would not favor that.
I would suggest that, as written, the ACNW Plan reajLmore like the performance criteria
~
requitedofallNRCindependsRfov'ersightcAmmitteesasdirectedbythe
~
s
~~
Comission in'thiSidi oiDSI-19EIHdsperidentTvWsight--issued prior to--
my arrival, and not a Strategic Plan in GPRA terms.
~^
~
5.
Finally. I would note that the second-tier priority assigned to the low level waste issues (LLW) by the ACNW may well need to be revisited. The proposed priority reflects the Commission's action on DSI-5. but does not reflect the number of complex LLW issues which have since arisen.
This has led me to revise the views I held at the time DSI-5 was presented to the Commission. Areas where the Commission would benefit from ACNW advice include Trojan waste classification, the issues surrounding Envirocare and generic criticality issues at LLW sites, and setting appropriate standards for clearance levels of materials.
cc:
Commissioner Dicus Commissioner Diaz SSECYe OGC EDO CF0 CIO f
i
_ _ _ _ _. _ _